linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/4] tracing/workqueue: Add max execution time mesurement for per worklet

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 28 Apr 2009 19:14:44 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Zhaolei <zhaolei@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Tom Zanussi <tzanussi@...il.com>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] tracing/workqueue: Add max execution time
	mesurement for per worklet

I have no idea how the code actually looks with these patches applied,
so please don't take my words seriously, but

On 04/28, Zhaolei wrote:
>
> @@ -24,6 +24,17 @@ struct workfunc_stats {
>  	/* Protected by cpu workqueue lock */
>  	unsigned int			inserted;
>  	unsigned int			executed;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * save latest work_struct's pointer to use as identifier in
> +	 * probe_worklet_complete, because we can't use work_struct->...
> +	 * after worklet got executed
> +	 */
> +	void				*work;

Do we really need it ?

> @@ -143,6 +154,8 @@ found_wq:
>  	list_for_each_entry(wfnode, &node->workfunclist, list)
>  		if (wfnode->func == work->func) {
>  			wfnode->executed++;
> +			wfnode->start_time = trace_clock_global();
> +			wfnode->work = work;
>  			goto found_wf;
>  		}
>  	pr_debug("trace_workqueue: worklet not found\n");
> @@ -153,6 +166,43 @@ end:
>  	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&workqueue_cpu_stat(cpu)->lock, flags);
>  }
>
> +/* Complete of a work */
> +static void
> +probe_worklet_complete(struct task_struct *wq_thread, void *work)
> +{
> +	int cpu = cpumask_first(&wq_thread->cpus_allowed);
> +	struct cpu_workqueue_stats *node;
> +	struct workfunc_stats *wfnode;
> +	unsigned long flags;
> +
> +	spin_lock_irqsave(&workqueue_cpu_stat(cpu)->lock, flags);
> +
> +	list_for_each_entry(node, &workqueue_cpu_stat(cpu)->list, list)
> +		if (node->task == wq_thread)
> +			goto found_wq;
> +	pr_debug("trace_workqueue: workqueue not found\n");
> +	goto end;
> +
> +found_wq:
> +	list_for_each_entry(wfnode, &node->workfunclist, list) {
> +		u64 executed_time;
> +
> +		if (wfnode->work != work)
> +			continue;

Perhaps we can add node->last_work (or whatever) instead? It should be
recorded by the "entry" handler. In this case probe_worklet_complete()
doesn't need to search for this work (and it doesn't need the argument).
We know that wfnode == node->last_work.

Oleg.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/